You might have thought that was pretty easy to ascertain without a map, simply by standing in the street and listening to the planes, the traffic, the trains and the factories.

But the Government thinks maps showing the level of noise are an essential addition to our ever-expanding portfolio of information, though they have, in fact, been required to produce them by the EU Environmental Noise Directive.

Nevertheless, the justification given by ministers for publishing this information is compelling.

Jonathan Shaw, an environment minister, said: "These maps provide the most comprehensive snapshot yet of noise in our country, all at the click of a mouse. They will provide a springboard to go forward and tackle unnecessary and unreasonable noise pollution."

He added: "We will use them to draw up action plans to reduce noise where practical from major roads and railways, as well as from urban areas."

Now substitute the word "crime" for "noise". All police forces map crime in their areas, yet they do not publish the information in enough detail for the rest of us to see what they can see.

Why not? One reason, apparently, is that they are concerned that to do so will add to the "fear of crime", a nebulous concept that police chiefs are set targets to reduce and which is best achieved by actually making the streets safer.

Should not the same arguments apply to crime as to noise? Crime maps could also be used, as with noise, to "draw up action plans" to reduce offending.

Police say that is what they do already. But if the information were published, can you imagine the pressure that would be applied by local people for something to be done once they discovered their street was the favoured haunt of muggers, or cars in their locality were more likely to be broken into than elsewhere?

The crime map would be one of the first pieces of information sought out by anyone looking to move into a particular area along with the quality of the schools and the transport links.

People whose house prices were affected by being in the middle of a high-crime zone would be understandably aggrieved. They might demand more regular foot patrols; or the re-opening of the local police station that closed two years before; or for the remaining one not to shut its doors at 6pm.

They might ask the local police superintendent to tell them how many uniformed officers were available in their neighbourhood on a Friday night and they would be shocked to find out how few that was. There would be a powerful incentive for residents to complain and insist on effective measures to cut crime.

If, as a result, police had to bear down hard on offenders and crime fell in the neighbourhood, then house prices would rise.

A new Policing Bill proposed by the Government in its draft Queen's Speech is intended to provide "a clear and powerful public voice in decision-making through the election of directly elected representatives."

It is by no means certain that this will actually improve democratic accountability, rather than blur it. Councillors nominated by local authorities already sit on police authorities, so they currently have members who have been elected, albeit indirectly.

The Tories complained that this idea was stolen from them, but they have been pressing for something far more innovative, namely a US-style directly-elected police commissioner.

In New York City, which has seen a dramatic drop in crime in recent years, the commissioner is not elected but is appointed by a directly-elected mayor. This gives the police chief extra latitude, while ensuring there is a political target for the voters worried about crime.

They kick the mayor and he kicks the commissioner. In extremis, they remove the mayor and the new one appoints another police chief. The New Yorker also gets the information to create a crime map.

Since 1994, when Bill Bratton was appointed police commissioner and crime started to fall, the NYPD has been required to publish computerised statistics.

These are also used to guide crime control strategy meetings, where commanders have to discuss crime and policing in front of a big-screen computer map showing levels of offending on their patch.

Some rudimentary crime mapping is already available to the public in a few parts of England, but the picture is far from comprehensive.

In London, Boris Johnson has promised to produce proper crime maps and the Tories say this will be extended across the country if they win power, with local information provided on a range of common offences such as burglary, vehicle theft and street assault.

"Once the appropriate statistics are freely available, it would be comparatively simple from a technical point of view for citizens themselves to overlay the statistics on to an online street map," says a Conservatives policy document.

The costs would be minimal as the data already exists; it would be made easily accessible using a website. This might prove even more effective in improving accountability than electing police chiefs.

The crime figures that really matter are local. It is no good being told by some self-serving politician that overall crime is falling around the country if there are more muggings in your street and your children are being robbed or assaulted.

In order for accountability to mean anything, accurate information has to be made available to anyone who wants to see it. How can people form an opinion of police performance unless they have the facts, clearly set out? Who trusts crime statistics that are published now in such a confusing way?

If we can have comparative test statistics for schools and health data for hospitals, then we can surely have proper crime figures.

This is not about league tables of police forces, which they resist on the grounds that every area is different. It is about giving people the means to answer the same questions about crime that the Government considers are of such importance where noise is concerned.